Changing the SFAR district map, speak now or forever hold your peace

We love to share the inner workings of our real estate system with you, and especially love to give you a voice, so we’ll consider YOUR comments on this thread as OUR voice and forward the entire link to the San Francisco Association of Realtors for review.

The District/Subdistrict Map published by the San Francisco Association of REALTORS® needs to be reprinted… [M]arkets are elastic and can change over time for a variety of reasons. As such, it would be appreciated if, in the next few days, readers of this publication will review the existing map, particularly the boundary lines of the districts and subdistricts, and advise [us in the comments] of any changes [you] might wish to suggest.–SF Realtor Advantage

yeah. Hayes Valley needs to be reworked, so does NOPA. Why not just make lower haight part of the whole haight ashbury district and run the line there along Oak, haight and webster? And why even have sunset/parkside? Why not just make it all different variations fo the sunset. That’s what everyone refers to it as anyway. Like outer parkside could be the way outer sunset or something.

Yes, I don’t understand how that one section of far northwest Noe is really Noe. Why does the border jog halfway over to Valencia, exactly? On the far south side, I think one could argue that Noe, Harper, Sanchez, Church, etc. are more “Noe” than they are “Glen Park”. If you live on that section of Church, you fall out of your front door into Upper Noe Park. It’s a 20 minute walk to Glen Park…

The border between 8A & 8B and 8C & 8B should be moved eastward. Stockton is not appropriate. Grant street is. East of Grant, you’re in Fidi, west of grand you’re in Nob Hill or Union Square. Small detail but accurate. An argument could be made that south of Bush and west of Kearny is more Union Square than Fidi. If you really want to be accurate, create a China Town District north of Bush Street, but you’d have to be careful because between Bush and Sacramento, Stockton is more Nob Hill, but north of Sacramento, definitely China Town.

This is long, and I try to split into sections to group the same theme comments. I’m sorry to base my comments on the web map, I do not have an immediate access to the printed one.

========

carnelian should belong to Diamond heights, not NoeValley. And along the limit 4b 5c, there could be a couple more adjustments – maybe. (see below)

Same goes for Diamond street @ Beacon.

limit 9e 9c. Any reason to have 9c split by the highway? Utah should belong to potrero (thus mission)

limits 9d 9f 9h. again. should reflect the chore changes. I dont know the details but basically keep the integrity of the new planning by the city and refocus on the new road thruways, shopping areas etc.

Bernal heights could be split in two. and so could be Noe valley (etc etc). I wouldn’t vote for a formal split (as in new letters, new coding) but I’d like to see a dotted line and a faded wording “north”/”south” or something like it, and the limit respecting some obvious topographic lines.

The presidio. Now that the presidio is “somewhat” open for taking residence, could there be a faded wording for the 3-4 groups of ʔ

Area around UCSF between 7th and stanyan could be one unit, ‘parnassus”. and the rest of 5e, either ashbury heights or cole valley (or both)

=========

I have a question in return. does this mean we can request READJUSTMENTS for mistakes? I know of a few properties which have been (purposely???) assigned with the wrong district (always in the $$$ best interest).

The flip side of this question is: are they REALLY asking for changes that can MODIFY the value of a few properties around town? if so, how do they decide whereas the request for change is legitimate, and not motivated by a future buyer or seller trying to get a deal in the change?

==========

They could also be some grayed area for any slope above 10% (as in a 1 foot drop for 10 feet drive, or 10 feet drop in a 100 ft garden). It would add some DIMENSION to the 2D map and moreover, while we are at the “sfarmls monopoly” give the printed map, aka the tool/freebee of the REALTOR a dimension not yet available on the web alternative (but soon to be available anyway)

Why is there a mention of schools (altho missing a LOT of them, including some public ones [where is “clarendon” ?]) but not supermarkets? (the ones large enough to be on the planning dpt of the city). Ok albertson is closed on 32nd@clement, but the building and parking indicates major retailing, often a plus in this city.

Same goes for the playgrounds, or rather the play-structures, which indicated both children, noise, night loitering or convenience depending on your needs.

if this becomes too much information, then ditch the subject altogether, and remove the useless school flags.

==========

CHECK THE SPELLING. “elAmentary” ???

ORIENTATION of the vertical words. I think head titled left is preferred over head titled to the right. Or at least be consistent: check Kronquist vs Castro just left of the NOE yellow label.

NEW ROADS. I guess a correction of the 101’s and other ramps and misc is included?

LIMITS. create a CLEAR visual aid to explain when the limit being on the street, if both sides belong or not, to the same district. I vote for the former in most cases as neighbors from both sides of a same street usually use the SAME drive routes, and walk to the SAME bus stop, which is not the case for garden neighbors (ie sharing the fence at the back of their garden). Example: both side of Clarendon should belong to the same district at any point, while Geary’s sides are not from the same district (in most blocks)

south of st mary street, the triangle around bosworth should belong to bernal heights (bart, shopping etc). bernal is WAY to large and disparate. Precita is clearly part of mission >> refer to faded wording for sub sub districts.

or something like “bernal heights mission north”. “bernal heights glen park west” ?? bernal north, south, east and west according the the slope of the hill?

10a (bay view) could be split along the train tracks, with the west part named “bayshore” or “industrial”. (and maybe include the east finger south of cesar chavez going to the bay.

one last comment on the district map. Who decided how many or how large should be the districts? I don’t understand why 4 is split in stamped size sub-districts, while mission 9c holds maybe 100.000 people. For me, the right size is when you can take the map and WALK AROUND a sub-district in a reasonable amount of time. Again, I don’t understand if this survey is about a real change that would improve the RE world, or if they are only looking at microscopic changes.

I think a sub-district should be homogenous in the sense that most people looking in one part of a sub-district should be willing to look in other parts of the same sub-district.

Potrero Hill (9e) fails this test and should be split into a north slope and a south slope.

I agree with Sophie about moving Glen Park south to include more streets that are easily walked from the heart of Glen Park village. Today, the village is at one end of the district. Equally, I might transfer some of the streets on the north side of the hill into Noe (or a new South Noe). They’re more likely to shop and eat in Noe than in Glen Park.

District 4 has all those subdistricts because of the different tracts of land that were developed and the neighborhood associations that persist to this day. Where else in the city do you get pillars marking the boundary between different sub-districts? Having said that, I don’t think there’s any significant difference between St Francis Wood and Monterey Heights or between Forest Hill and Forest Hill Extension.

That north side of Glen Park (over the hill; Laidley, etc.) is also called “Fairmount Heights” by some of the residents. But I think it consists of about five blocks, so should probably just be part of Noe. Or, as some have suggested, maybe there’s an upper and lower Noe.

Sophie says>Area around UCSF between 7th and stanyan could be one unit, ‘parnassus”. and the rest of 5e, either ashbury heights or cole valley (or both)

Agreed. That area is pretty uniform from around cole / stanyan until you get to 7th or so. It is the UCSF “Parnassus Heights” campus, yet on one side of the garage it’s considered the haight, whereas the other side is the inner sunset. 5th ave has a lot more in common architecturally and neighborhood wise with stanyan or willard than it does with 12th ave, when you get a lot more sunset / marina style houses from a different time period.

I live on Valencia near the tiny street of McCoppin (one block from Market) We and all our neighbors think we live in the Mission, but realestate folks say we live in SOMA. We don’t. Sorry. We are west of Mission and on Valencia. This is Mission.

The eastern boundary of 5M (Mission Dolores) should be expanded from Valencia street to Mission street and the southern boundary should be expanded to 22nd St. This way the district would encorporate the Liberty Hill Historic District.

The area around Franklin Square with its mix of light industrial and residential, old brick mills and new lofts could become a new subdistrict bounded by Division on the north, Potrero on the east, 20th to the south, and Folsom to the west.

I agree with Damion – Rincon Hill has to be a subdistrict. It is totally weird to call buildings like “The Infinity”, “The Metropolitan”, “The Lansing”, and “One Rincon Hill” as being in “South Beach”. There is a distinction between South Beach and Rincon Hill already in people’s minds…

Also, there should be a “South Financial District” that should be carved out of SOMA perhaps going down 4th to Folsom and over to Rincon Hill. I’m sorry, but the St Regis is not a “SOMA” building, neither is The Montgomery, 199 New Montgomery, The Millennium, nor the Four Seasons!